Nope, the snakes had legs, then they did not. That constitutes a loss of genetic information, and for it to be evolution there must be a gain of information.So our snakey friend there is actually evidence for nothing more than a slowly degenerating universe.

Snakes losing their legs is not degenerative. It helps them move more swiftly, and thus it is beneficial. Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time, so whether this is a "loss" or "gain" of "information" is irrelevant. It is still evolution.

This fossil is positive evidence that life has evolved over time. And by the way, the argument that mutation cannot "increase the information" of the genome is not new, nor is at all correct. I have answered this question over and over and over: Insertion mutations and Gene Duplications increase genetic material and lead to novel functions/structures.

Here is an example:http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

Here is another:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm

The science daily article reports a group of lizards evolving a novel cecal valve in about 36 years (18-20 generations for them).

There are lots of other examples. Take a look at "Evolution for Creationists Part 4" Question 2.

I thought evolution says animals with legs are higher form of life. Why a higher form became extinct while a lower form prevails? All you find is something that had legs. How do you know it wasn't another species that has become extinct? Bicycles and cars looks alike, can I say that cars evolved from bicycles or bicycles evolved from cars. Or they look alike because they are all human products and designs?

To tell the truth, evolution says nothing about "higher" forms of life. People sometimes use the phrase "higher forms of life", always using man as the highest life form (this is a throwback from creationism, thinking that man is the best life form. Sort of like the phrase "sunrise" is a throwback from the days when man thought the sun revolved around the earth).

All species are equally well adapted to survivng and leaving behind as many offspring as they can, legs or not.

And your bicycle/car analogy is terrible. Bicycles and cars do not reproduce like living things do!! With living things, high degrees of similarity nearly always mean a blood relationship. DNA Paternity Tests assume that the more closely related two people are, the more similar their genetics. So if you doubt that high similarity=common descent, you also dount DNA results.

AIGBusted said, "And your bicycle/car analogy is terrible. Bicycles and cars do not reproduce like living things do!!" Years ago when I believed in evolution I thought of a similar analogy (bicycles to motercycles) and I realized that it wouldn't hold up for the very same reason that AIGbusted cited about this one. But then that immediately led me to another point. Bikes don't evolve into motorcycles yes, but why not? Well once reason is that they are not living things--which leads to my point. How did a non-living thing become living so as to be able to evolve in the first place? That's an uncrossable chasm.